The Lindbergh Kidnapping Case

The evidentiary case against Hauptmann turn up to be as complex and as roundab pop as the formal charges. No direct evidence was ever gear up to tie Bruno Hauptmann to the kidnapmurder of Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr. There was, however, a massive and varied body of circumstantial evidence. He play a pioneering "psychological profile" which had been drawn up of the leery based on the ransom notes and the character of the crime. He was a carpenter, with access to tools that precisely matched the marks on the home built ladder found by the Lindbergh house. His handwriting matched that of the ransom notes. above all, of course, he had been found in possession of a square(p) part of the ransom money.

The trial was conducted in an atmosphere that piece of tail only be called a media circus. This writer recalls that his first picture show to the Lindbergh kidnapping story was on a television excess he saw years ago as a child. What was most striking was footage of hucksters selling models of the kidnap ladder, crying fall out "get your Little Lindy ladders here!" to the crowd.

Hauptmann was found guilty. The dialog box returned a verdict of firstdegree murder, and declined its option to advise life imprisonment; in accordance with New jersey law at the time, presiding Judge Thomas W. Trenchard sentenced Hauptmann to death. State and federal official ap

 His possession of the ransom money, and the radiation diagram of his finances, which showed a dramatic upturn soon after the ransom was paying in the spring of 1932. Hauptmann's defense was that he had been given the peculiar(prenominal) bills of the ransom money by an acquaintance who had subsequently died, and that his financial situation had changed due to his playing the stock market.

Scaduto goes further however, to nominate that in fact the investigators not only had reason to experience that Hauptmann had not committed the crime, exactly to believe that QQQ had. But because this would forte abandonment of the case they had built against Bruno Hauptmann, they chose not to pursue the leads, but instead covered them up and deliberately framed Hauptmann.

Scaduto, Anthony (1976). scapegoat: The Lonsome Death of Bruno Richard Hauptmann. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.

 Dr. Condon's identification of Hauptmann as the "John" with whom he had been in contact during the ransom negotiations. Reilly made a decrepit attempt to shake Condon's credibility by questioning him almost a criminal record he had supposedly checked out from the New York public library about theosophy (Waller, 1961: 330). Theosophy was a Hindiderived movement, ancestral to what we would now call "new age" movements; and Reilly's effort to impugn him was analogous to tying a present daytime witness to "channeling" in order to raise titters (and thus doubts) among the jurors. (In fact, the book had been checked out by another person with a similar name.) Condon, however, made a credible witness.

Ordercustompaper.com is a professional essay writing service at which you can buy essays on any topics and disciplines! All custom essays are written by professional writers!